Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District

Trial transcript: Day 11, PM Session, Part 2

Q Professor Behe, right before the break you said
that the findings accumulated over 140 years that support the
contention that Darwinian processes could explain complex
molecular systems total a number of zero, correct?

A Well, again, you have to look at the papers. And
what I meant by that is ones which fully explain how random
mutation and natural selection could build a complex system; yes,
there are no such explanations.

A I don t think I said zero papers, perhaps I did,
but there are zero explanations.

Q And zero is the same number of articles in
peer-reviewed scientific journals that argue for the intelligent
design of complex molecular systems?

A The number of peer-reviewed papers in scientific
journals which show that life is composed of molecular machinery
that exhibits the purposeful arrangement of parts in detail on
term, you know, many many many thousands. There are -- I think
there are just one or two that mention intelligent design by
name.

Q That argue for the intelligent design of complex
molecular systems in peer-reviewed scientific journals?

A No, I don t think -- now that you mention it, I
think that I was thinking of something else.

Q And there are zero articles in peer-reviewed
scientific journals arguing for the irreducible complexity of
complex molecular systems?

A There are none that use that phrase, but as I
indicated in my direct testimony, that I regard my paper with
Professor David Snoke as to be arguing for the irreducible
complexity of things such as complex protein binding sites.

Q Now, the claim that -- if we could go back to
Ernst Mayr s list and highlight -- just focus on the common
descent. You claim that intelligent design does not take a
position on common descent, which is defined here as, "The theory
that every group of organisms descended from a common ancestor
and that all groups of organisms, including animals, plants, and
microorganisms, ultimately go back to a single origin of life on
earth." Correct?

Q Okay. And then Dr. Mayr also has the claim of
gradualism, which says, "According to this theory, evolutionary
change takes place through the gradual change of populations and
not by the sudden, saltational, production of new individuals
that represent a new type."

And it s your testimony that intelligent design
does not properly make a claim about that proposition in the
theory of evolution?

A That s correct. It could either -- it could be
consistent with a gradualistic or a nongradualistic fossil -- or
nongradualistic history of life. It is not a claim that impinges
on intelligent design, although it may in fact impinge on
theories that purport to explain life without intelligence.

Q Let s go back to Pandas. If you could open up
the book and go to page 98. This is just to prove we re not
completely wed to pages 99 to 100, though we may return to
them.

If you could go down to the first column on page
98, under the heading "Sudden Appearance or Face Value
Interpretation," it states: "The fossil record shows that most
organisms remain essentially unchanged. The conclusion to be
drawn is that major groups of plants and animals have co-existed
on the earth independent of each other in their origins, which
must be explained in some way other than Darwinian
evolution."

Independent of each other in their origins, that
is the opposite of going back to a single origin of life on
earth, isn t it?

A That is -- in my view, that s an attempt to
simply explain what we see in the fossil record, which I
understand from the quotations that were read to me by Mr. Muise,
that some well-known paleontologists have essentially agreed
with, to my thinking. Also --

A I m sorry. But so it -- so it seems to me that
the text here is trying to draw a conclusion that is more
consistent with the actual fossil record that -- well, the record
that they perceive to be the fossil record, without imposing a
theoretical construct on top of it.

Q It s drawing a conclusion from the fossil
record, isn t it, Professor Behe, it s not just describing the
fossil record?

Q And the conclusion is, separate origins of
plants and animals, various types -- groups of plants and
animals, correct?

A Yes. But if I might point out, this is in a
section of the book entitled "Meaning of Gaps in the Fossil
Record," which actually begins on page 96, which I discussed in
my direct testimony. And this is one of a number of different
interpretations which attempt to explain what is described as a
noncontinuous or apparently noncontinuous record. The first one
is that there is an imperfect record, that is, we haven t got all
the fossils, or all the fossils didn t fossilize -- or all
organisms didn t fossilize. The second that Pandas mentions is
incomplete search. The thirds that it mentions is jerky process,
which is an inartful way of saying punctuated equillibrium. And
the fourth one is the -- is the -- is what they re concluding
that in fact the fossil record may indicate that these organisms
did appear as they are.

Q And that last interpretation is inconsistent
with the description of common descent in Ernst Mayr s
description, correct?

A That s correct. And let me just repeat just for
context, that Pandas says -- if I could find the data that -- or
the description, and I can t find it right here -- they say that
scientists should not accept the face value interpretation of the
fossil record, without also exploring the other possibilities,
and even then only if the evidence continues to support it.

So the way I read the textbook is that they re
trying to tell students that this seems to be what the record
shows, and we should look for other explanations, and we might
draw this conclusion tentatively, but our tentative conclusion is
always subject to revision if new data comes out.

Q Okay. Let s go on in the page that I pointed you
to, page 98. Go to the second column, and the second full
paragraph. And it says, "The intelligent design hypothesis is in
agreement with the face value interpretation and accepts the gaps
as a generally true reflection of biology and natural
history."

Nothing tentative about that, is there, Professor
Behe?

A No, I think it s quite tentative in the context
of what I just read. It says the intelligent design hypothesis is
in agreement with. The way I m reading it is that it is not in
conflict with the face value interpretation because intelligent
design doesn t speak to common descent. It only says that we can
detect design in some physical features of life. So it does not
conflict with intelligent design -- to the intelligent design
hypothesis, as it might with one of the tenants of Darwin s
theory as written by Ernst Mayr, gradualism, and perhaps common
descent as well.

So the way I see that is in fact they re saying,
well, there is no conflict between intelligent design and the
face value -- or the face value interpretation.

Q It doesn t say no conflict, does it, Professor
Behe, it says in agreement?

A That s correct. But in agreement can mean that
-- can mean no conflict. It means that there is no reason to rule
out intelligent design because of this aspect of the fossil
record, although other theories might have difficulty with
it.

Q It doesn t say intelligent design is also in
agreement with the jerky process or punctuated equilibrium as you
describe it, does it?

A Well, from scanning them it does not look like
it says that. But I do not draw any grand conclusions from that.
I would just say that, you know, this is a correct statement that
the intelligent design hypothesis is in agreement with the face
value interpretation.

I would also add that it s in agreement with all
of the other -- all of the other topics listed under this section
as well.

Q Let s go back a little further. Let s go down a
little further in that paragraph. It says, "A growing number of
scientists who study the fossil record are concluding that the
structural differences between the major types of organisms
reflect life as it was for that era.

"This view proposes that only the long-held
expectations of Darwinian theory cause us to refer to the
inbetween areas as gaps. If this is so, the major different
groups of living organisms do not have a common ancestry. Such a
conclusion is more consistent with currently known fossil data
than any of the evolutionary models."

It s taking a side, isn t it, Professor Behe? It s
taking a side for the face value interpretation.

A It certainly is not. I mean, it s certainly
proposing something that a student normally doesn t read about in
their biology textbook. But it says that this is what the data is
consistent with, and it s -- in their opinion it s more
consistent with this data than with other -- I m sorry, with this
model than with other models.

And earlier, or perhaps later, I ve lost the page,
it advises students that we should hold our views tentatively,
and if new data turn up which cause -- should cause us to revise
our estimation of our views, then we should do so. So I see no
inconsistency between this -- I do not see this as advocating, I
see it as a description.

I think they are careful to present the ordinary
interpretation, or the common interpretation. They re careful to
say that is the common interpretation. They re careful to say
that there are multiple -- multiple explanations for the data
within the common interpretation. Then they say that, well, there
s this other interpretation that may be consistent with the data
too; we should only hold this interpretation if it continues to
be consistent with the data.

I think a ninth grader reading this would say to
themselves, wow, you know, look at the different ways we can look
at the data. Huh, let s decide what the data is and what our
interpretation is.

I do not view this as, as something that would
cause a ninth grader to jump up and say ah-hah, there must not
have been common descent. I view it as something that would cause
a ninth grader to sit down and say, let s think about this data,
let s see if we can really -- if our views are as strongly
supported as we thought.

"Intelligent design means that various forms of
life began abruptly through an intelligent agency with their
distinctive features already intact: Fish with fins and scales,
birds with feathers, beaks and wings."

That s the definitional statement in this section
of the book. That s not consistent with common ancestry, it s
directly opposed to it, isn t it, Professor Behe?

A Well, as I tried to make clear in my direct
testimony, I don t think this was well written. I think it s
tentatively phrased. It says "some scientists," and certainly I
do not think that that is a definition of intelligent design.

And what I see this paragraph trying to say is
that we see these things in the fossil record as some eminent
paleontologists apparently agreed, and that if we hold this view,
this face value view, then we do not have to necessarily come up
with some strained explanation, or some explanation which seems
ad hoc, perhaps that s the way it happened, because intelligent
design can accommodate a fossil record like this.

Q And the way it happened is inconsistent with
common ancestry, birds, fish, separate, right?

No, I disagree. It just means abruptly as seen in
the fossil record. Even if one thinks it were through intelligent
agency, that -- that event might have been through common
descent, through some ancestors in the past giving rise to these
things, but that it happened so rapidly that it did not leave
traces in the fossil record.

And might I add that that is oftentimes an
interpretation given to the fossil record by paleontologists,
such as, say, Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge. They said
that apparently, and if you look at the fossil record -- from my
nonexpert understanding -- that the theory of -- punctuated
equillibrium says that things change and then suddenly -- or
things stay the same and then suddenly change. And so that in the
fossil record you just see rather large changes. But they
certainly do not disagree with common ancestry, and I don t think
this is arguing for it either.

Q Professor Behe, it s one thing to say fossils
appeared abruptly, it s another to say life began abruptly, isn t
it?

A I disagree. In the context of this book, when it
s talking about fossils, when it s talking about the fossil
record, when it s talking about all the problems that one has in
getting fossils, that fossils -- if I can find the correct page
-- that there might be an imperfect record due to the fact that
fossils form imperfectly, that there might be incomplete search
and so on, that this conveys to me, and I think to any -- any
ninth grader reading it, that this is the data we have from the
fossil records. So that when we say these things began in the
fossil -- abruptly, that means that we perceive them to begin in
the fossil record.

Q That s a pretty charitable interpretation,
Professor Behe, but let me ask you this question. Abrupt
appearance, you would agree with me that s inconsistent with
gradual? Gradual and abrupt, you re not going to tell me those
are the same?

A That s correct. But I d like to say that a
number of scientists, in my understanding, challenge the gradual
evolution and the gradual tenant of Darwin s theory. One person
is a lady named Lynn Margulis, who is a professor of biology at
the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, and a member in the
National Academy of Sciences. Let me just briefly explain to make
this point. I don t intend to take much time.

She proposed that things that we call
mitochondria, which occur in eukaryotic cells, which are cells
with nucleus, which include us and everything except bacteria,
they occurred when a pre-eukaryotic cell essentially enveloped a
smaller bacterium, and the two essentially developed a symbiotic
relationship.

And her view of this, and other people s view of
it, is that this is in fact a saltational event; nongradual
development of an entirely new life form. So gradualism is not
the -- or abruptness is not the opposite of common descent, and
-- well, it s not the opposite of common descent.

Q Lynn Margulis is not being taught at Dover, but
intelligent design is, and it s your assertion that intelligent
design makes no claim about gradualism, but this passage we ve
read here, it s completely inconsistent with the concept of
gradualism. Abrupt appearance or -- life beginning abruptly.

MR. MUISE: I believe he prefaced his question that
intelligent design is being taught at the Dover -- in the Dover
schools, and I don t believe there s evidence that intelligent
design is being taught.

THE COURT: Well, I understand. This is a bench
trial. You say it s taught; you say it s not taught. I ll take
that for what it s worth. The objection is overruled. You can
answer the question.

Q It says there, "Intelligent design means that
various forms of life began abruptly." That s the opposite --
that is directly contrasting the claim of gradualism made by
Ernst Mayr, correct?

A The -- how shall I phrase this? The sentence
there I read as saying that intelligent design can be consistent
with; that the fact that the fossil records seems to have forms
of life appearing abruptly, while it might cause problems for
Darwinism, it does not cause problems for intelligent design,
because intelligent design does not speak to how fast or how slow
such things happen.

And so I see that as saying essentially an
intelligent design proponent can take this data at face value and
does not necessarily have to have secondary hypotheses to try to
explain it.

Q That s how you read the -- something that
starts, "intelligent design means."

A Well, again, as I said in my direct testimony, I
don t think this was written very well, but I think the sense of
that sentence is not hard to discern.

Q All right. Why don t we continue on the subject
of common descent. Could you go to page Roman numeral, small
Roman numeral ten. This is in the introduction.

Q In the last full paragraph of the page it says,
"Of Pandas and People is not intended to be a balanced treatment
by itself. We have given a favorable case for intelligent design
and raised reasonable doubt about natural descent." Correct?

Q So there it s actually saying intelligent design
is a separate theory from natural descent, correct?

A Well, the way I read that phrase is that they re
contrasting intelligent design with unintelligent processes,
which I think they, again, just use the phrase natural descent as
trying to indicate that. But I do not read it as opposing the
theory of common descent.

Q Starts "Among Organisms," and going to the
second sentence it says, "Design proponents have a realistic and
more cautious approach to the use of homologies. They regard
organisms which show great structural differences, such as
starfish and chimpanzees, as having no common ancestry."
Correct.

A Yes, that s what it says, but again, I read that
as the fact that while other theories such as Darwinisms might
make a commitment to common ancestry, a theory of intelligent
design can live with what the data shows on that respect, because
a theory of intelligent design does not speak to that; it just
speaks to the effects of intelligence. So I see this as an
accommodating sentence rather than as something that is
required.

A Again, if I can just comment that, again, I see
this as telling students or presenting to students that it seems
that much of the data in the fossil record, as the writers of
Pandas perceive it, is being fit into a theoretical framework
which is dictated by Darwinian theory. And that if you do not
invoke that theory and you look at the data in a different way,
then intelligent design can live with whatever the results of
that different look shows.

Q In your view intelligent design doesn t have to
take any position on common descent?

Q Okay. But here you say, Behe says, intelligent
design is making no claim about common descent; and this book
says, intelligent design questions the Darwinian notion of common
descent. Those are the same thing to you?

Q Pandas says, intelligent design questions the
Darwinian notion of common descent. Those are the same thing to
you?

A I see this as part of an argument. The -- as I
try to make clear in my testimony, intelligent design is seen in
the purposeful arrangement of parts, and that is the positive
argument for intelligent design. But also, a part of the task of
somebody who holds that view is to try to answer other views
which claim to -- which claim to explain what intelligent design
purports to explain.

And one of those is to show where the other theory
has problems. And I view this as part of that kind of negative
argument that, that while -- that while -- that while intelligent
design can live with what data we have, this seems to be a
problem for the current theory, as a number of paleontologists
have said. And they ve tried to -- they ve tried to fix it up,
and they propose these explanations, and perhaps they re right,
but maybe that s not correct. And if it s not correct, well then
this other theory, this rival theory is -- is -- has some
difficulties, but that intelligent design does not. So I see it
as part of a negative argument against a rival to intelligent
design.

Q And it s a negative argument against the part of
that argument called common descent, correct?

A That s correct, just as my argument was an
argument against natural selection. And when people make claims
for natural selection, I have to show why that is a poor
explanation for what we see.

Q So I think we re in agreement, in Pandas,
intelligent design is making a claim about common descent in the
same way you claim to be making a claim about natural
selection?

A No, I think that s incorrect. I think the claim
of natural selection goes more directly to the question of the
purposeful arrangement of parts.

The idea of common descent does not go, in my
view, so directly to the question of the purposeful arrangement
of parts. But nonetheless, as a part of Darwinian theory, it s
required much more for Darwinian theory. Nonetheless, that would
make that idea less plausible, and therefore that s part of the
negative argument.

Q Okay. So Pandas is making an argument against
common descent, but you say intelligent design is not?

A Pandas is making a negative argument against
common descent to show the plausibility to greater -- more
greatly enhance the plausibility of the alternative of
intelligent design, that s correct?

Q Thank you. Now, can we go back to page 11 of the
report and highlight again the underscored text.

So this is back to the claim that you say
intelligent design makes, "Intelligent design theory focuses
exclusively on the proposed mechanism of how complex biological
structures arose."

A Well, the word "mechanism" can be used in many
ways. In this I was -- and when I was referring to intelligent
design, I meant that we can perceive that in the process by which
a complex biological structure arose, we can infer that
intelligence was involved in its origin.

Much like if I might refer back to the Big Bang
theory, the Big Bang theory proposes no mechanism for how the
universe arose, but nonetheless it infers that, whatever the
mechanism, it came by some sort of explosive process.

So there are many other questions that these
theories leave unaddressed, but they do posit some aspect of the
cause which is very useful to have and which is supported by the
data.

Q I just want to get it clear here, intelligent
design is about cause?

A Well, cause is a broad word, and when you re
trying to explain how something came about, you can say it came
about for a variety of reasons. But intelligent design is one
reason or one aspect or one cause to explain how the purposeful
arrangement of parts that we see did come about.

Q Back to my original question. What is the
mechanism that intelligent design proposes?

A And I wonder, could -- am I permitted to know
what I replied to your question the first time?

Q I don t think I got a reply, so I m asking you,
you ve made this claim here, "Intelligent design theory focuses
exclusively on the proposed mechanism of how complex biological
structures arose." And I want to know what is the mechanism that
intelligent design proposes for how complex biological structures
arose?

A Again, it does not propose a mechanism in the
sense of a step-by-step description of how those structures
arose. But it can infer that in the mechanism, in the process by
which these structures arose, an intelligent cause was
involved.

A Again, the word "mechanism" -- the word
"mechanism" can be used broadly, but no, I would not say that
there was a mechanism. I would say we have an aspect of the
history of the structure.

Q So when you wrote in your report that
"Intelligent design theory focuses exclusively on the proposed
mechanism," you actually meant to say intelligent design says
nothing about the mechanism of how complex biological structures
arose.

A No, I certainly didn t mean to say that. I meant
to say what I said in response to that last question, that while
we don t know a step-by-step description of how something arose,
nonetheless we can infer some very important facts about what was
involved in the process, namely, that intelligence was involved
in the process.

And let me go back one more time to the Big Bang
theory. Again, we don t have a mechanism for the Big Bang, but we
can infer some important events about what happened, and that was
that it happened in some explosive manner, it happened a distinct
time ago and so on.

So additionally, I might say, that it also focuses
on other proposed mechanisms that purport to explain the
purposeful arrangement of parts. And so I think it is quite
accurate to say that that s exactly where intelligent design
focuses.

Q So it actually -- it focuses on other proposed
mechanisms, by that you mean natural selection, don t you?

A No, just a natural selection, complexity theory
and so on. But certainly the most widely accepted, and then the
one that you would have to convince most people -- or explain to
most people is not well supported is the one which is the
currently accepted explanation of natural selection.

Q Okay. And so in terms of mechanism, it s just a
criticism of Darwinian evolution s mechanism and not a positive
description of the mechanism?

A No, I disagree. I say that while, again, while
it does not give you a step-by-step description of how such
things occurred, it does tell you something very important about
the cause or the way in which these structures arose, and that
was through the actions of an intelligent cause.

Q So, Professor Behe, why don t we go to your
deposition and see how you answered the questions then, okay?

Q And you answered, "Intelligent design does not
propose a mechanism, it simply tries to support the conclusion
that intelligent activity was involved in producing the
structures."

A Yes. And that language, I think, is completely
consistent with what I was trying to say here today, that it does
not tell you step by step how something was proposed -- or how
something was produced, but nonetheless it says something very
very important about the origin of the structure, and that is
that intelligent activity was involved in producing it.

Q And then further down the page at line 24 I
asked you, "In terms of the mechanism, it s just a criticism of
Darwinian evolution s mechanism and not a positive description of
a mechanism." And what did you answer, Professor Behe?

A I said "that s correct." But again, I think this
is completely consistent with what I just said. Again, it does
not propose a step-by-step description, but it -- but it proposes
or it accounts for some very important features of what was
involved in its origin, and that is intelligent activity.

Q You have, throughout your testimony over the
past two days, criticized the concept of natural selection quite
a bit, correct, or the claims made about natural selection?

A Well, I think you have to be careful. I think
natural selection is real, and certainly explains a lot of
things. And what it s -- what it can explain, it explains well.
And like I said, it does account for a number of features of
life.

So I would not say I m criticizing natural
selection. I think that many people infer that natural selection
has -- can explain things that I don t think it can, and so I ve
criticized those arguments and those extrapolations.

Q For example, antifreeze proteins, that s an
example of natural selection operating at the biochemical level,
correct?

A If by antifreeze protein you mean the particular
antifreeze protein that was discovered in antarctic notothenioid
fish a few years ago in which a gene for trypsinogen, the five
prime region for that gene was found next to a coding region for
a simpler one, yes, that s right, I do agree with that.

Q And that is another thing where -- another
biochemical system that you acknowledge can be explained through
natural processes?

A No, you have to be very very careful there. In
my book I discuss the example of hemoglobin, and I said -- I
discussed it as an example of something that may be amenable to
Darwinian explanation. And I was careful to say that if you start
at the starting point of a protein similar to what s called
myoglobin, which is a single chain protein, and you probably
recall yesterday that hemoglobin has four chains stuck together;
if you have this single chain protein, myoglobin, which
essentially has the very similar structure to hemoglobin, if you
start with that, the question is, what does it take to form an
aggregate of that structure with the properties of
hemoglobin.

So I said, for that segment, starting with
myoglobin, going to hemoglobin, that I did not see any impediment
for natural selection to explain that. But I did not -- there
certainly is no literature. There is no experiment. There is no
detailed description of how that actually could happen. So I said
that for purposes of argument I think that, you know, we can --
we can certainly say for now that perhaps Darwinian mechanisms
can explain that.

Q Now, before we go in detail into your argument
from irreducible complexity, I want to confirm some other aspects
of how you understand intelligent design.

It does not identify who the designer is,
correct?

A That s correct. Let me just clarify that. I m
talking about the scientific argument for intelligent design
based on physical data and logic, yes.

Q You believe it s God, but it s not part of your
scientific argument?

A No, I don t think so at all. When you see a
structure, even in our everyday world, just think about
archaeological structures such as a Sphinx or Easter Island or
some such thing, one thing you can say is that these -- two
things you can say, is that these things were designed, and that
the intelligent agent or intelligent agents who designed them had
the ability to design them. So I don t think that s tautological
at all.

Q Archeology is a science that you find very
similar to the design argument of biochemical systems?

A Well, archeology is a science, and design
argument is an argument. But I think in archeology some of the
reasoning they employ -- I m not an archeologist, of course, but
I understand that in some of the reasoning they employ is similar
to their reasoning that intelligent design proponents such as
myself might employ.

A Well, as I think I said in response to the
question, we know the designer had the ability to make the
design. So, but beyond that, we would be extrapolating beyond the
evidence, so we can t say more than that.

A Well, we have to infer what we have from the
data, and the data tell us that a designer can make a certain
object. It does not say what the designer might not do. In our
everyday world somebody who makes some simple object might be
able to make a more complex one or so on.

Q How can it possibly say anything about the
intelligent designer s motives without knowing anything about who
the intelligent designer is?

A Well, I think it s -- that s pretty easy. For
example, let s go back to the SETI project, Search for
Extraterrestrial Intelligence. Suppose that astronomers in that
project one day discerned a signal coming in from outer space
that they discerned to be of intelligent origin, maybe even it
carried a message or something like that exotic. How would they
know the motives of whatever sent that? They might not know them,
but nonetheless, they could -- as a matter of fact, the whole
project is based on the assumption that they would be able to
detect the message without knowing the motives of whatever sent
it, without knowing its abilities beyond the ability to send the
message, and so on. So I don t think that s a problem
whatsoever.

Q Let me try and cut this short. It s fair to say
that in the case of the intelligent designer and biological or
biochemical life, we know nothing about its ability or
limitations except from what we conclude from the system that was
designed?

A Yes. A scientific theory makes -- draws its
conclusions from the physical evidence. So the fact that
intelligent design draws conclusions from the physical evidence
is completely consistent with what any good scientific theory
could do.

Q Eric made the car because he wants a nice car,
right? That would be an inference about my motives based just on
seeing the car in my garage, or that I bought the car?

A No, I disagree. What you would say from looking
at the car in your garage is that this car was designed, and if
it was in your garage and it turned out that somebody was staying
at your house that was not you and that was their car, well, then
that s consistent with the conclusion of intelligent design. The
extrapolation to who the designer was or who purchased the car or
anything like that is unjustified by the data. If it was, you
know -- well, I could make other examples, but I think the point
is clear.

Q And just to be -- just to wrap this point up, we
know nothing about the intelligent designer s abilities or
limitations except for what we can conclude from the specific
system or object that we re observing?

A Since intelligent design is a scientific theory,
it has to draw its conclusions from physical data. So yes, that s
how we determine whatever we know about the design and whatever
inferences we make to the cause of the design.

Q And similarly, we know nothing about the
intelligent designer s motives or needs or desires except for
what we can conclude from the specific system that we re
observing?

A Yes. Let me just reiterate that, that in fact a
scientific theory depends on physical data. It can t depend on
anything else. And so of course it has to draw whatever
inferences it can from the physical data that it has
available.

Q Okay, and in this case that s just the system we
re look at, the bacterial flagellum?

A Well, if you re considering the bacterial
flagellum, then yes, that would be it, you could consider other
things as well.

Q Now, you ve told this Court that intelligent
design does not involve supernatural action, correct?

A That s correct. I -- no, I said that it -- it s
-- intelligent design is a scientific theory that focuses
exclusively on physical data and logical inferences. And so since
any scientific theory does not infer from beyond the data, then
we cannot say anything about whether some structure was produced
by supernatural means.

Q Could you open Darwin's Black Box, which is
plaintiff s exhibit 647.

A Okay. "There is an elephant in the roomful of
scientists who are trying to explain the development of life. The
elephant is labeled intelligent design. To a person who does not
feel obliged to restrict his search to unintelligent causes, the
straightforward conclusion is that many biochemical systems were
designed. They were designed not by the laws of nature, not by
chance and necessity, rather, they were planned. The designer
knew what the systems would look like when they were completed,
then took steps to bring the systems about. Life on earth at its
most fundamental level, in its most critical components, is the
product of intelligent activity."

Q They were designed not by the laws of nature,
correct, Professor Behe?

MR. ROTHSCHILD: And, Matt, if you could go to the,
I guess the first full paragraph, which begins "In such a view,"
and highlight the passage that begins "By intelligent design"
midway through the page.

Q And here you say, "By intelligent design I mean
to imply design beyond the simple laws of nature. That is, taking
the laws of nature as given, are there other reasons for
concluding that life and its component systems have been
intentionally arranged."

And going further down the page you say, "In my
book, and in this article, whenever I refer to intelligent
design, I mean this stronger sense of design-beyond-laws."

And those are natural laws, correct, Professor
Behe?

A Yes. And if you read that sentence that you
skipped over there, it says, By intelligent design I mean -- I m
sorry, let me see -- I kind of got lost here. I mean to design --
"I mean to imply design beyond the simple laws of nature. That
is, taking the laws of nature as given, are there other reasons
for concluding that life and its component systems have been
intentionally arranged, just as there are reasons beyond the laws
of nature for concluding a mousetrap was designed."

What I was intending by that passage was something
much less grand than the design of the laws of nature, to which I
was contrasting my position. I was likening it to the design that
is involved in simple mechanical objects such as the mousetrap.
And as I explained in my testimony, that is exactly the basis for
how we detect design, when we perceive the purposeful arrangement
of parts.

So that is the sense of design in which I meant.
It s actually a more modest sense of design than design of the
laws of nature.

Q Mechanical design of a mousetrap is beyond the
laws of nature, Professor Behe?

A It requires intelligent activity. It s beyond
unintelligent -- the operation of unintelligent laws. There is no
law of nature that explains a mousetrap.

A That s correct, but how they act is not
described by any law that I know of, and I have -- I have never
read any law that describes how a mousetrap comes about.

Q Well, why don t we go on to page 700. If you
could highlight the question that Professor Behe is asking on
this page. "Is it plausible that the designer is a natural
entity?" in the first full paragraph.

That is the question you ask. "Is it plausible
that the designer is a natural entity?"

MR. ROTHSCHILD: And then if, Matt, if you could
actually go to the next two full paragraphs and highlight
those.

Q And you say, "The problem is the following.
Currently we have knowledge of only one type of natural
intelligent designer even remotely capable of conceiving such
structures as are found in the cell, and that is a human. Our
intelligence depends critically on physical structures in the
brain which are irreducibly complex. Extrapolating from this
sample of one. . . " -- that s humans, correct?

Q ". . . it may be that all possible natural
designers require irreducibly complex structures which themselves
were designed. If so, then at some point a supernatural designer
must get into the picture.

"I myself find this line of reasoning persuasive.
In my estimation, although possible in a broadly permissive
sense, it is not plausible that the original intelligent agent is
a natural entity. The chemistry and physics that we do know weigh
heavily against it. If natural intelligence depends on physical
organization, then the organization seems likely to have to be
enormously complex and stable over reasonable periods of time.
While simpler systems may perform the tasks that irreducibly
complex systems perform a terrestrial life, they would likely
perform them more slowly and less efficiently, so that the
complexity required for intelligence would not ultimately be
achieved. Thus, in my judgment it is implausible that the
designer is a natural entity."

You don t absolutely rule it out, but you re not
taking it very seriously, are you?

A Well, I ve said that quite a number of times. I
think I said that at the beginning of my testimony yesterday,
that I think in fact from -- from other perspectives, that the
designer is in fact God. But if you turn back to page 699, there
s a section entitled, "Is it possible that the designer is a
natural entity?" And I won t quote from it, but I come to the
conclusion there that sure it s possible that it is, but I do not
-- I myself do not find it plausible.

Let me again liken this to the Big Bang theory. Is
it possible that there was some event in nature that caused such
a thing? Yes, it s possible. We know of no such event, we don t
-- you know, we haven t known of such an event since the Big Bang
theory was first proposed something like 75 years ago; but it s
certainly possible. It s also possible that it wasn t.

And the distinction that I was trying to make
throughout my testimony is that when we use scientific reasoning,
and when we constrict ourselves to physical evidence and logical
reasoning, we can only go so far. We can say we don t have a
natural -- we don t have an explanation for this event right now.
We cannot -- and the history of science shows this time and time
again, we cannot say that because we don t have a natural or an
explanation for a certain event now, that we won t have one in
the future. Intelligent design I think is in the same category as
the Big Bang on that point.

Q And I know you re fond of the Big Bang, but let
s be clear, you re not an expert in physics, correct?

A That s what implausible means. Yes, but again,
the conclusion from this evidence does not lead one to an
explanation beyond nature.

With this I was also relying on my other -- on
considerations other than scientific ones, from philosophical,
theological and historical beliefs. So again, arguing from
scientific data only takes you so far. It takes you to the point
of the fact that we do not have an explanation for this event
right now. But to go beyond that requires a reasoning beyond just
scientific reasoning.

Q So in Darwin's Black Box you said beyond nature,
in this article you said beyond nature, but that s just your
theological hat?

A Well, as my discussion of John Maddox s
editorial from yesterday Down with the Big Bang which occurred in
Nature, and my discussion of Arthur Eddington s writings, and my
discussion of Walter Nernst s comments, many people saw in the
Big Bang implications for theology and philosophy and things
beyond nature.

So I think that -- that nonetheless we would all
agree that the Big Bang is a scientific theory in the same way
intelligent design, in my view, is a scientific theory, even if
somebody like John Maddox sees for this theory that it has
implications beyond science.

Q Now, you ve said in your testimony today and
yesterday you personally believe the designer is God.

MR. ROTHSCHILD: And, Matt, if you could turn to
page 705 of the article. If you could highlight the top
paragraph, until the sixth line.

And you write here, "What if the existence of God
is in dispute or is denied? So far I have assumed the existence
of God. But what if the existence of God is denied at the outset,
or is in dispute? Is the plausibility of the argument to design
affected? As a matter of my own experience the answer is clearly
yes, the argument is less plausible to those for whom God s
existence is in question, and is much less plausible for those
who deny God s existence."

It s a God friendly theory, isn t it, Professor
Behe?

A Let me respond in a couple of ways to that.
First, let me clarify for context that this is a journal called
Biology and Philosophy. So not only am I speaking about
scientific matters here, but I m also talking about nonscientific
matters here in an academic forum. Academics embraces more than
just science. This is an academic forum which also embraces
philosophy, and so I addressed philosophical issues as well.

And again, my statement as written is certainly
correct. And it s happened time -- many times in science, and,
again, I ll just refer back to John Maddox s article Down With
the Big Bang. He didn t like the Big Bang theory. And it wasn t
because the data were inconsistent with it, it s because it was
philosophically unacceptable. Walter Nernst hated the idea of a
beginning to the universe. It was unscientific. So -- and other
people have said similar things.

So it s clearly true that people make decisions
even about a scientific theory, based not only on the science
itself, but what they perceive as other ramifications of the
theory.

But I argue, I ve argued a number of places, that
it s the proper role of a scientist to leave aside those other
considerations as much as possible and focus simply on the
scientific data.

Q And you accept funding from the Center for
Renewal of Science and Culture?

A As -- over the past years, and there was a time
about -- a period of three years, about eight years ago, up to
about five years ago, where I was given a grant by the Discovery
Institute -- well, actually I wasn t given a grant, the Discovery
Institute gave a sum of approximately 8,000 to $10,000 per year
to the university to release me from some teaching obligations so
that I could write and think about intelligent design issues.

A I heard about it. I wasn t aware about it until
I heard about it being discussed on the Internet. Apparently
somebody purloined this document, or took the document from the
Discovery Center and posted it on the web, and there was a
discussion of it then. That s when I became aware of it.

Q What it said here was, "The social consequences
of materialism have been devastating. As symptoms, those
consequences are certainly worth treating. However, we are
convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off
at its source. That source is scientific materialism. This is
precisely our strategy. If we view the predominant materialist
science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as
a wedge that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when
applied at its weakest points. The very beginning of this
strategy, the thin edge of the wedge was Phillip Johnson s
critique of Darwinism begun in 1991, in Darwinism on Trial, and
continued in Reason in the Balance and Defeating Darwinism by
Opening Minds. Michael Behe s highly successful Darwin's Black
Box followed Johnson s work. We are building on this momentum,
broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to
materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called
the theory of intelligent design. Design theory promises to
reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist world view, and
to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and
theistic convictions."

Q Okay. And you were a fellow at the time you
became aware of this document?

A That s correct. I did not -- I did not -- I was
not aware of it before it was placed on the Internet. I don t
know the source of the document, who wrote it, whether it was
some -- somebody s draft of something, whether it was a
fundraising letter, whether it was, you know, something else, but
I did not know.

A I don t know, no. You know, again, if one doesn
t see who wrote it, I don t know what to make of this.

If this was written by somebody who had no
particular importance in the organization, or who had in mind
something that would not, you know, be approved by people in
charge or some such thing, then there was no particular reason to
pay attention to it.

A You bet I did. I -- you know, I very much enjoy
my association with the Discovery Institute. I think that people
associated with it are very helpful in my -- developing my ideas.
And yes, I m -- I place much value on my contacts there.

MR. ROTHSCHILD: Your Honor, I d just like to
discuss one more exhibit with Professor Behe, and that might be a
good time to break, and it will be brief.

A That s right. The occasion was that Pope John
Paul II, had issued a letter to the Pontifical Academy of
Sciences concerning evolution, and it was very much in the news
at that point. And The New York Times had just reviewed my book
earlier in the summer, and so they knew that I was a Catholic
scientist and that I might be an appropriate person to write
commentary on that event.

Q And in the second full paragraph, beginning, "I
grew up," you write, "I grew up in a Catholic family and have
also believed in God. But beginning in parochial school I was
taught that He could use natural processes to produce life.
Contrary to conventional wisdom, religion has made room for
science for a long time. But as biology uncovers startling
complexity in life, the question becomes, can science make room
for religion."

Q And then you went on to discuss your proposition
of intelligent design as set forth in Darwin's Black Box,
correct?

A And if I could just say that by that phrase,
"can science made room for religion," I had in mind reactions
like that of John Maddox and that of Arthur Eddington and that of
Walter Nernst, who were thinking that science necessarily had to
rule out things whose philosophical or other implications did not
disturb them.

And if you could go to the second page. And the
second to the last paragraph, you write, "Intelligent design may
mean that the ultimate explanation for life is beyond scientific
explanation. That assessment is premature. But even if it is
true, I would not be troubled. I don t want the best scientific
explanation for the origins of life; I want the correct
explanation."

That s what you wrote, correct?

A I certainly did write that, and I think it s a
quite reasonable statement.

The Big Bang might ultimately be beyond scientific
explanation. We have no explanation for the Big Bang right now.
Many people, including people who don t like it, see theological
and philosophical implications in the Big Bang theory. I put
intelligent design in the same category, as I ve mentioned before
in my testimony.

We do not have any unintelligent explanation for
life. We don t have any current explanation. We don t rule it
out, but ultimately we might not have one. And ultimately it
might not have -- might not receive a scientific explanation. And
if that s the case, well then that s the case, we just have to
follow the evidence where it leads.

Q Just so we re clear, the Big Bang has been
accepted by significant portions of the scientific community?

A That was about three decades or so after it was
first discussed by George Lemaitre, a Belgium priest, who first
proposed it based on observations of the red shift of the
galaxies and apparent expansion of the universe. But for the
first several decades it was extremely controversial and not well
accepted.

Q And intelligent design, now after several
decades of its modern era, has not been accepted, in fact, it s
regularly rejected?

A Intelligent design certainly is not the dominant
view of the scientific community, but I m very pleased with the
progress we re making. As I ve tried to make clear in my
testimony, although some -- many scientists do not like it, if
you look at their statements, you do not see any scientific
evidence which, when examined closely, is -- when examined
closely, shows that intelligent design is incorrect.

Q Okay. It s not been well accepted or indeed
accepted by anything but more than a small minority of
scientists.

A Well, again, I m afraid I m -- I think the
situation is a whole lot more complex than perhaps you do.

Statements of large scientific organizations do
not represent the views of their members, other than -- much like
statements of other organizations might represent all the views
of all their members. And I think that if you actually surveyed a
large number of scientists and you ask them carefully what they
thought about how one could explain life, I think that a
significant fraction would indeed say that something like
intelligent design was plausible.

A Well, it s based on some experience that I ve
had talking with scientists in many of these discussions that I
have. Many scientists have misimpressions of intelligent design,
and when they I speak with them, they oftentimes see that it s
more -- has a more compelling argument than is oftentimes
presented in publications, magazines, and so on. So it s based on
some experience.

THE COURT: All right. We ll recess then for the
day at this point, the hour being almost at 4:30, and we will
reconvene at 9 a.m. tomorrow and continue with Mr. Rothschild's
cross examination of the witness.